Ish, on what basis do you conclude that BAS is non-apologist? I mean, they're not fundies by any means, but they read like apologists to me.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
[b]
I'm sorry but when one says "appeal to authority" they usually mean the fallacy. That's the short hand term for it and that's the way people refur to it. But it wasn't an appeal to authority of any kind, I was documenting the evidence Ramsy found it was an appeal directly to empirical evidence. well as empirical as archaeology gets.

Are you ever going to say anything of substance? I don't care about your stupid issues they are merely insluting. I dont' care about your lame little list. Are you ever going to say anything worth responding to? Since that is probably a hard thing for you to figure out,I'll give you a hint, that means something to do with the issues rather than personalities.

JubilH - Stop INSLUTING him! Sex is bad thing
for Christians.

Meta - take another 10 minutes timeout. And,
what would Jesus have to say about the
quality of your witness?

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock: Now this time please read all the words. Tutornm says the census in Luke 2 didn't take place. According to Robin Lane Fox, Michael is correct. Fox states, "The scale of the Gospel's error is now clear. The first census did occur under Quirinius, but it belonged in A.D. 6 when Herod the Great was long dead; it was a local census in Roman Judaea and there was no decree from Caesar Augustus to all the world; in A.D. 6 Joseph of Nazareth would not have registered at Bethlehem: as a Galilean he was under direct Roman rule and was exempt from Judaea's registration; his wife had no legal need to leave home. Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent. It clashes with his own date for the Annuciation (which he places under Herod) and with Mathew's long story of the Nativity which also presupposes Herod the Great as king. It is, therefore, false." The Unauthorized Version, P. 31. Meta =>That's not the census to which Ramsay is refuring. That was a one time shot. He's talking about an on going mechinism that was still in place in the second and thrid centuries. So this is not the same thing. Metacrock: In fact there is a ludicrous page on the infidels site that also asserts this. What makes the site "ludicrous?" Meta =>It ignores the facts I've demonstrated. Metacrock: This is real 19th century stuff. It was way back in the 19th century that people tired to pick on Luke's historicity, in fact so long ago that even the 19th century Scholar Von Harnnack said it was shameful. Wait a minute. William Mitchell Ramsay wrote the first edition of St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen in 1895!! You disparage the critics of “the 19th century,“ and yet, the authority you have chosen to believe wrote his commentary in the 1800’s. Meta =>You can't see the logic of that? It was the sort of criticism that was fashonable in the 19th century. For that reason it was answered in the 19th. That just means the answer has been around a long time and if the guys at the Sec WEb were really the big cracker Jack scholars atheists look to them as, they would know that. BTW, Robin Lane Fox is not from the "19th century." He is a modern historian. rodahi

Meta =&gt;So is Harrision and the Author of New Advent page whom I also quote. So Fox is wrong modern scholar.

Meta =&gt;Retired lecturer Sydney U. Big deal. Her book was not well recieved by the scholarly community. In fact it's a laughing stock. It doesn't matter what her credentials are, anyone who thinks that she can just read in any meaning she desires by comparing the floor plan of caves at Qumran to the geography of Palestine and that's suppossed to prove that the events really happened at Qumran is an idiot. She establishes no objective criteria for understanding her versoin of pesher and no reasons for seeing things that way. It's a comic book.

Your nuts man! I have the findings from the archaeology to prove the point, it goes undenied and you have the gaul to claim you won that issue? You arn't even in the room. If this was a debate tournement your coach would kick you off the squad for being asleep during the round!

And the rest of the issues down the board are the same. I document form mythogrophers that Mirtha didn't die, Osiris didn't rise, no dying rising savior Gods. Krishna was killed with an arrow, Mirtha was born of a Rock, no one has come back on any of that. You have no ability to critque an argument.

I guess you think that becasue I'm not over there on the "I want my turn at bat" thread going "you are, no Im not, you are" than I lose the argument. Big deal. learn to think.

I have long noticed that atheists have reading comprehension problems. I didn't ralize they also have mathematical problems was well. I have three sources that agree on the census thing, Ramsay, Harrison, and the New Advent page. That's 3.

The reason I don't blindly accept them is because I don't consider gullibility a virtue.

Than why are you an atheist? Why do you think that finding the records of the census is not proof that it existed?

As for my own inexperience in this area, if I am not able to critique or verify particular claims, then those claims are useless for me or against me. The only alternative would be blind acceptance and that is not honesty in my opinion.

You don't have to accept it blinding just to note that you have no good reason to reject it.

As for "lying", this is too strong a word. I believe Meta, just like other apologists, presents the "evidence" that will support his claim (and thus his beliefs) and ignores evidence that would shed doubt on it. There are undeniable ulterior motives that rumble around underneath all this stuff. Ignoring the reality of that would be dishonest as well. (Not to mention stupid)

Meta =&gt; The link to New Advent is there to be clicked on. If you think I'm somehow distorting it why don't you look for yourself? And for that matter get the Harrison book. You have no right to make such a charge because you no reason for saying it other than "Meta is a christian and I don't beleive Chrsitains" well I don't beleive athiests so there! thththtpppt.

Again, I don't understand what kind of corroboration you're looking for.

At this point - any professional corroboration from an expert in archeology would be a start. Are you totally unaware of how important peer review is in regard to honest research?

Are you totally unawre that all three of my sources are archaeologists? They are all professionals with Ph.D's and everything. Its ludicrous to just blinding deny 3 sources just because you don't like the conclusion.

What would make up your mind?

Well thats an interesting question. I'm a pessimist in regards to what we can find out about history. We believe things about history and we believe them in varying degrees. The question you're really asking as I see it is: How much evidence would convince you and how much could you be convinced? (More colloquially put - how much would I bet that such and such a historical claim is actually true?)

From the extremely sparse information we have about this particular period of history I doubt very much I would ever have strong confidence in such detailed conclusions. Moderate confidence is probably the most I could ever expect. Right now the confidence is almost non-existent.


[/QUOTE]

Did you even read the post? They found the records from the census, Why is that not proof?

Meta, you're the one who makes personal attacks. I made a professional one, directed to your bias, tactics, use of authority and writing skill. I've offered you an opportunity for rebuttal. You've declined. Reasonable inferences will be drawn.

And, I repeat, I did make a substantive comment on this thread. You ignored it. Just as you ignored my substantive posts on the cosmology threads.

No you didn't! If you had even read the thread carefully you would see the fish thing was solved. to dig that up again just shows that you are merely trying to get under my skin. And you haven't said anything on any issues. To you an "issue" is how I "argue" and you can't even get that right, becasue the fish thing wasn't even an argument. You have yet to present anything to show that I take quotes out of context or any of that. And you cannot show an example where I started the insulting. I may have come on bruskly but I neve start the insutls. They do, I merely respond. That's my policy and I'm always sticking to it.

NOw say something of substance on the issues because I am through arguing minutia with you. If you cannot deal with topic at hand than I have nothing to say to you,is that clear?